What's the difference? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

YungChun

08-09-2006, 04:32 AM

They seem diametrically opposed, yet they both come from the same system...

Amazing isn't it?

I like the forward pressure/movement in the first one and the more uncooperative style..

Fan Sao was minimal as was actual release of energy in striking.

Forward body pressure was there, dynamic movement, breaking structure, but not a lot of flanking or "moving the line”..

Too willing to separate <give up> distance and "restart."

Luk Sao was varied in pace and pressure.
=====================

Typical WT precise use of “fixed” stances and turning.

Fan sao was shown but normally limited to chain punches.

A "non standard" move was used with the inside "upper cut" with outside lop--the partner should have dropped his elbow..

No attempt to recover..

No release of energy, body power, non contact—use of air punches.

Minimal forward pressure from the body or the elbows.

Luk sao was unvaried and rapid.

Ultimatewingchun

08-09-2006, 06:13 AM

It's hard to look at these vids without making a comparison and judgement:

The guy in the first vid with the black Chinese jacket is miles ahead of not only his partner in the first vid - but of both guys in the second vid.

As to the difference in chi sao approaches between the vids....without the footwork, forward pressure, and more acute sense of distance shown in the first vid (as the guys in the second vid had none)...absent those things...

it's like comparing guys' chi sao who have never learned anything more than SLT and the first section of chum kiu with guys who know all of SLT, chum kiu, bil jee, and wooden dummy besides.

All this praise being cited - nonetheless there are still holes in the first vids chi sao guys (including Mr. Black Jacket):

As Yung Chun said - there was no attempt to outflank - just straight ahead or straight back in retreat, as it were. And without flanking - there's a big hole in your chi sao (and your fight) game.

Secondly, once the first vid guys broke apart into a gor sao (as happened often)...where were the stop kicks? Go back and look at how many times a stop kick to the knees/shins (hitting with the heel, of course)....could have cut down an attack right in it's tracks...or how many missed opportunities there were to stop Mr. black jacket's chain punch type attacks with pak or pak/chuen (coupled with sidestep flanking).

All in all, though...I enjoyed the first vid. Mr. black jacket is good.

esfwto

08-09-2006, 09:02 AM

sihing

08-09-2006, 09:14 AM

its not possible to compare the vidio´s. the wt-guy´s are only showing the chi-sao-sektions.

its a kind of "death"working, because the other knowes what the other will do. they exercise positions thats all!

the scond video is more alive, they use a lot of space- i think they need too much spache!!! mir shifting would be good.

and why are there no kicks? for komplete chi-sao you need chi-gerk.

i hope i dont make too many misstakes in ortography:D

My understanding of the WT video is that it was NOT predetermined but more of a random form of chi sau. In most video of chi sau, I rarely see movement exibited when the exchanges are fast and furious, most just stay in one place and shift/hit/react from there. Once movement begins by one party the other usually fails to keep the distance and follow what leaves.

This is what I like the most about the first vid, they are in motion, not static and still exibit good intention towards centerline. They maintain structure but are free flowing not static. This is realistic of fighting, as motion is always present in a fight and one must flow with whatever happens, strike when it's needed, trap/control/pull/push etc.. when it's needed.

The second vid demonstrates good flow and speed in movement/technique. This is good at a beginner level, as you have to develop one thing at a time, but as the vid said that was a "Master's demo".

Regarding kicking, I'm sure all the players from both video's could have done that at anytime. To me they were practicing at a specific range, trying not to incorporate kicks at that time. Chi sau is not fighting, but it is a good way to judge specific WC skills, as it's an alive drill where most all aspects of WC can be demonstrated.

J

sihing

08-09-2006, 09:53 AM

AndrewS

08-09-2006, 10:46 AM

First up-

You're looking at two entirely different situations.

#1). Guy sparring with his student with some dude chasing them with a camera
#2). Two guys (who've been training partners for 20yrs or so, as I understand it), who do many demos together, given a fixed lit mark in front of backdrop doing a 'demo' version of chi sao where both of them are on display, initially each letting the other in for a clean attack and followup, something that starts to break down towards the end as they begin to open up in the last 5-10 seconds of the vid.

This alone makes for some serious differences in what you wind up seeing.

#1). Crispy attacks, nice dynamicism, but I have some problems with the footwork as the retreats seem extremely linear (as does much of the attack)- this may be part camera angle, and part feeding/drill component, but I view going straight back as a serious flaw, and ideally like to see a quick offline back if necessary, following by closing up the line created by the offline (or an attempt at this). The chi sao is done at the range where it takes little footwork to get the hit, and is done with engaged body structure, pressuring fairly constantly. You see nothing of rolling here-no poon sao contact, everything is working from a cross-arm bridge sort of platform- nothing wrong with that, but it makes for a different dynamic as one hand is always free. The pace and delivery of actions is consistent with real-time application and speaks to direct translation to practical usage.

#2). Starts from rolling, the roll happening from outside striking range, arms are pretty disconnected/light so as to give the other person no purchase on their structure initially and not compromise their ability to change as they go in. Feet, especially Ringheisen's-the little guy, go with hands and you can see where he's probing, looking for safe ways to go in at the end, getting shut down by Mannes as he tracks him and holds center. The footwork doesn't have a nice crispy look to it, in part, because they're both aborting their motion as the other shuts them down. (Compare with the steps on <http://www.youtube.com/watchv=K5bmbxlnPqI>, from the same tape). I dislike the lack of engagement of structure on the rolling, but I understand the rationale behind it (and have gotten my *ss handed to me by sifu Emin when I've tried to engage and pressure him, both by him engaging right back better, and by him going all ghostly and giving me nothing to crush through/into while he appears somewhere else).

More another time,

Andrew

Lee Chiang Po

08-09-2006, 12:23 PM

I am not understanding all this. Chi Sau is not a form of fighting, or even entry to a fight form. It is simply a method of training ones blocks and attacks in a safe and uniform way. It is difficult to practice something such as a strike or block against air or a wooden arm, and is much better practiced against another person. The cooperation between the 2 persons is designed that each one can practice at the same time for greater effect. This Chi Sau we see where 2 people are working along and one breaks out and wails the heck out of the other person is silly. It is not reality. How many people have you ever defended yourself against that would do Chi Sau with you? I have never come up on someone that was even trained WC, and if someone attempted to make contact with my arms in an effort to use this as a fighting attack would get a surprise. Too much emphasis is put on Chi Sau as a fighting form.

Wu Wei Wu

08-09-2006, 04:07 PM

i enjoyed both clips for what they were meant to show, different dynamics of chi sao within two different paradigms of WC.

the similarities are that the operators are working within their comfort zones, with partners who are mirror images. i like to watch chi sao where you see different lineages engaging.

i like the structure from clip one. shows some good mechanics. i like the closing footwork.

clip two, nice flurries but i prefer to see cleaner lines and better alignment in the striking.

both were good, imo.

esfwto

08-10-2006, 03:02 AM

sure chi-sao is not fighting. and both videos are showing that fact.
in the first video is from time to time too much weight on in the front(imo) they use a lot of space.

the wt guy´s dont use the space they have. and master chi sao should include chi gerk.

i liked both.

YungChun

08-10-2006, 05:41 AM

Flanking or obtaining the Blindside is a good position to have, if you can get there. When I was in LA, I tried that alot and found that I was defeated as these guys would just track my center and attack it, taking my balance. Today, I can still use the strategy but it is something that must come to you, and not something that must be made to happen.

Depends on skill..

Any move that involves latteral energy, that is energy that "leaves the line" by the opponent could be addressed with just hands adjusting, or better yet, with hands and body adjusting position as one.. The body could just stay in one spot or you can move around them AS you do whatever hand techniques.. In other cases when you step in you can also be moving off line, in fact any time you step in or back you probably should or at least could move offline, either a little or a lot.. The idea is to maintain control of the the line and in some cases, to do so, you can "move the line" that is, you make a new line if they have already taken the first one.. Lateral movement <small or large> is as much a part of the system IMO as is linear movement is--what does Gary say? One is faster the other is safer.. :)

sihing

08-10-2006, 07:35 AM

Depends on skill..

Any move that involves latteral energy, that is energy that "leaves the line" by the opponent could be addressed with just hands adjusting, or better yet, with hands and body adjusting position as one.. The body could just stay in one spot or you can move around them AS you do whatever hand techniques.. In other cases when you step in you can also be moving off line, in fact any time you step in or back you probably should or at least could move offline, either a little or a lot.. The idea is to maintain control of the the line and in some cases, to do so, you can "move the line" that is, you make a new line if they have already taken the first one.. Lateral movement <small or large> is as much a part of the system IMO as is linear movement is--what does Gary say? One is faster the other is safer.. :)

Yeah, the more direct route is faster and going offline (blindside) is safer as you only in reach of two weapons of your opponent.

In TWC there are counters to moves like pak da and lop da where you step away, change the line while facing and then counter. This is all good when you have the distance and the proper stepping. These guys down in LA would be in much closer(they would always eat space) and when I would change the line and/or try to redirect or go for the blindside they stiffled it right away. They keep a constant pressure or lat sau jik chung towards your centerline which is hard to escape from when you are not familiar to that way. Obviously there are counters for it all, as I saw some of the posters here do just that to the guys that were on my ass earlier that day, lol. Skill is a factor, just that it has to be the right skill set.

J

Buddha_Fist

08-10-2006, 07:43 AM

...in the first video is from time to time too much weight on in the front(imo)...

Too much weight on front? Why? What's wrong with it?

they use a lot of space.

Is that bad? Have you seen how much space is taken in an actual fight when both parties have similar skills?

...and master chi sao should include chi gerk.

Says who and why? What is "master" Chi-Sao?

Just adding food for thought... ;)

YungChun

08-10-2006, 07:53 AM

In TWC there are counters to moves like pak da and lop da where you step away, change the line while facing and then counter.

This is all good when you have the distance and the proper stepping.

Well I'm not generally talking about making space..

Meaning that, say you do a Running Tan Da-- or similar move--in response to his energy and position, well you could do that by essentially stepping, more or less, straight in, OR, you could do it with lateral movement AND stepping in at the same time.. :cool:

Most moves can have some flanking in them..

What do we see in the Jong?

sihing

08-10-2006, 07:53 AM

Too much weight on front? Why? What's wrong with it?

Is that bad? Have you seen how much space is taken in an actual fight when both parties have similar skills?

Says who and why? What is "master" Chi-Sao?

Just adding food for thought... ;)

Wasn't chi gerk invented after Yip Man's death?

Most people start kicking when the hands are unable to do the job themselves. My philosophy towards using kicks when the hands are engaged first is only to do when you lose that hand contact range (trapping/clinch range), otherwise as soon as you raise up to use that chi gerk technique you land flat on you ass.

J

Buddha_Fist

08-10-2006, 07:59 AM

What do we see in the Jong?

A wooden dummy? :D

YungChun

08-10-2006, 07:59 AM

Wasn't chi gerk invented after Yip Man's death?

Good question..

Anyone?

Most people start kicking when the hands are unable to do the job themselves. My philosophy towards using kicks when the hands are engaged first is only to do when you lose that hand contact range (trapping/clinch range), otherwise as soon as you raise up to use that chi gerk technique you land flat on you ass.

Disagree..

Many folks teach that the best time to kick is when you have "three feet on the ground.." Which three?

What is the meaning of invisible kicks?

IMO most of the kicking is intended for inside use... Not to mention other leg moves, traps, immobilizations, breaks, etc...

CFT

08-10-2006, 08:21 AM

Many folks teach that the best time to kick is when you have "three feet on the ground.." Which three?The 2 of your opponent and your standing leg.

sihing

08-10-2006, 09:02 AM

Good question..

Anyone?

Disagree..

Many folks teach that the best time to kick is when you have "three feet on the ground.." Which three?

What is the meaning of invisible kicks?

IMO most of the kicking is intended for inside use... Not to mention other leg moves, traps, immobilizations, breaks, etc...

Nothing personal but trust me man, if you are trying to punch and kick simultaneously while in trapping range, it may work against some, but anyone with good lat sau jik chung training and the knowledge to eat space will put you on your ass 99.5 % of the time. The only reason someone would get away with that tactic is when the other guy is making a mistake and giving up to much space IMO. That's more of a chance gamble action.
J

YungChun

08-10-2006, 10:13 AM

Nothing personal but trust me man, if you are trying to punch and kick simultaneously while in trapping range

Misses the point of control IMO...

You take position to attack/control..

What you use to attack depends on the situation..

The advanced WCK fighter will attack on the top and the bottom with whatever kind of attack, with the legs and hands/arms, attacks on the bottom are not always kicks...

anyone with good lat sau jik chung training and the knowledge to eat space will put you on your ass 99.5 % of the time.

There seems to be a different reference in use here.. The legs are also used to eat space and disrupt the opponent's "stance" or leg position.. Part of doing this can also involve kicking--the use of legs--because they are longer--does not have to mean more space, it can involve less... :D

But again, this is all relative to skill.

As I said, a skilled WCK person will use his legs and his arms to take position and attack and take complete positional superiority--this by necessity involves both the arms. legs and body....

The only reason someone would get away with that tactic is when the other guy is making a mistake and giving up to much space IMO. That's more of a chance gamble action.

Again with the space thing.. Most of the moves in the system are for use on the inside, although legs can be used at longer ranges with Entering moves as well.

esfwto

08-10-2006, 11:37 AM

hello gentelman,

too much weight in the front makes kicking slower. and i´m able to attac the knee for example. thats why i allways try to keep the weight

i trained with teakwondo guys and chi-gerk worked well for me- so i don´t want to miss it.

they allways used allot of space to stay away from me:) .

should´nt we try to stay on our place in wcWT?

i did not know that chi-gerk was created after yip mans death. but is this realy important?

Buddha_Fist

08-10-2006, 12:21 PM

hello gentelman,

too much weight in the front makes kicking slower. and i´m able to attac the knee for example. thats why i allways try to keep the weight

So you prefer to sacrifice mobility and balance for the ability of kicking out ouf a rather stationary position? And your opponent is obviously going to run into it, right?

i trained with teakwondo guys and chi-gerk worked well for me- so i don´t want to miss it.

I guess it depends on your definition of Chi-Gerk. If you mean the version where the legs stick together all the time, there is a great chance for the fact that you're training "chasing legs" as opposed to using the legs to "eat space". I'm a Tae-Kwon-Do black belt myself and can't believe that the above described Chi-Gerk can be of any use in sparring. TKD sparring is way to active and mobile to allow for such stuff.

they allways used allot of space to stay away from me:)

Not only from you, but from anybody. They stay within their kicking range. That's their game.

should´nt we try to stay on our place in wcWT?

If you want to get whacked - yeah! Mobility / adaptation to the situation through footwork is the keyword.

i did not know that chi-gerk was created after yip mans death. but is this realy important?

That's not really important. What is important is whether it truly works with skilled opponents, and not with your next door's chubby training buddy.

AndrewS

08-10-2006, 01:44 PM

James writes:

Nothing personal but trust me man, if you are trying to punch and kick simultaneously while in trapping range, it may work against some, but anyone with good lat sau jik chung training and the knowledge to eat space will put you on your ass 99.5 % of the time.

Chi gherk or to use a more technical term- using your legs- is entirely possible in closer ranges. Thai boxing and judo provide ample competitive evidence for this at ranges just inside where most chi sao is performed, and closer.

If you are able to maintain structure, pressure, and the ability to change while constantly/frequently having a leg free to act, there are numerous opportunties to use leg actions in combination with hand actions. Developing yourself to the point where you can do this takes some work, but stems from working on 0/100 based structure, which moves your central axis from directly between your feet (50/50, 40/60) back about 4-6", making it more likely and easier that when you press with the arms, the front leg will press at the same time, breaking the other person's structure on the low line (a leg split in greco-roman wrestling). From this core mechanic (lead knee and elbow pressing), other things can develop.

Frankly, I usually don't bring legs into chi sao with people who don't train them regularly because most folks have a meltdown when you start kneeing, stepping on feet, and sweeping them, and take it kinda personally.

Emil writes:

I guess it depends on your definition of Chi-Gerk. If you mean the version where the legs stick together all the time, there is a great chance for the fact that you're training "chasing legs" as opposed to using the legs to "eat space".

Chi gherk (in WT) is the set of skills from stopkicking on the upper thigh or pelvis, to leg checks, to sweeps/offbalances off of leg checks, in to pressing their hip with yours. There are some formal chi gherk drills taught at upper levels which refine some mechanics working wooden dummy apps and Biu tze counters to them. These are probably derived from the chi gherk drills (cycles) constructed in HK in the 50s, which are appearantly based on much older loose applications (Rene, wanna chime in here?).

Andrew

sihing

08-10-2006, 03:04 PM

James writes:

Chi gherk or to use a more technical term- using your legs- is entirely possible in closer ranges. Thai boxing and judo provide ample competitive evidence for this at ranges just inside where most chi sao is performed, and closer.

If you are able to maintain structure, pressure, and the ability to change while constantly/frequently having a leg free to act, there are numerous opportunties to use leg actions in combination with hand actions. Developing yourself to the point where you can do this takes some work, but stems from working on 0/100 based structure, which moves your central axis from directly between your feet (50/50, 40/60) back about 4-6", making it more likely and easier that when you press with the arms, the front leg will press at the same time, breaking the other person's structure on the low line (a leg split in greco-roman wrestling). From this core mechanic (lead knee and elbow pressing), other things can develop.

Frankly, I usually don't bring legs into chi sao with people who don't train them regularly because most folks have a meltdown when you start kneeing, stepping on feet, and sweeping them, and take it kinda personally.

Emil writes:

Chi gherk (in WT) is the set of skills from stopkicking on the upper thigh or pelvis, to leg checks, to sweeps/offbalances off of leg checks, in to pressing their hip with yours. There are some formal chi gherk drills taught at upper levels which refine some mechanics working wooden dummy apps and Biu tze counters to them. These are probably derived from the chi gherk drills (cycles) constructed in HK in the 50s, which are appearantly based on much older loose applications (Rene, wanna chime in here?).

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

In your example of chi gerk/close range kicking success, Thai Boxing and Judo, I do agree they can work in those competative environments, but again like I stated against someone that has good LSJK and keeps the range tight it is more unlikely. Nothing is impossible to apply though and there is always the equation of the skill level difference between the people fighting and applying it against.
As usual it comes down to one point, can you pull off what your art teaches you?

James

AndrewS

08-10-2006, 08:50 PM

James writes:

In your example of chi gerk/close range kicking success, Thai Boxing and Judo, I do agree they can work in those competative environments, but again like I stated against someone that has good LSJK and keeps the range tight it is more unlikely.

Why?

Nothing is impossible to apply though and there is always the equation of the skill level difference between the people fighting and applying it against.
As usual it comes down to one point, can you pull off what your art teaches you?

Yes, and I've done it at speed, sparring under MMA rules, against people better than me.

Andrew

YungChun

08-10-2006, 09:22 PM

I guess it depends on your definition of Chi-Gerk. If you mean the version where the legs stick together all the time, there is a great chance for the fact that you're training "chasing legs" as opposed to using the legs to "eat space". I'm a Tae-Kwon-Do black belt myself and can't believe that the above described Chi-Gerk can be of any use in sparring. TKD sparring is way to active and mobile to allow for such stuff.

Well Chi Sao has arms sticking together yet clearly all training doesn't involve chasing hands... :?

Certainly it depends on what you do with the drill.. The idea as in Chi Sao is to develop positional awareness and learn how to place the legs in positions with respect to the opponent that help you and hurt him.. Once position is taken with the legs and arms of course the idea is to use that position to develop your attack which need not be restricted to the arms.. Some of the first finishing moves I was introduced to was the use of kwai sat, where the opponent takes position with the legs and knees and drops and presses in his leg and knee into your “stance” this kind of move is debilitating and creates complete upper and lower control when used by a good practitioner...

Again the drills help to develop sensitivity to contact and position.. How often do legs "clash" in TKD matches? How hard is it to get leg contact? How hard is it to issue force and get familiar with timing of leg contact and placement. A basic idea is to place the legs in positions where the opponent's kicking needs to replant his foot.. These can be very simple movements in sparring yet provide useful effects on entry as can stepping on the foot or placing the foot/leg in positions that make it harder for the opponent to move, these can set up other leg moves and of course hand moves as well, not to mention throws for those so inclined.

The question is if this is trained.. When some folks train their legs in this way they are always attempting to use their legs with their hands. Every time I step in in chi sao I will work to place my leg(s) in positions that interrupt--imbalance--or immobilize the opponent's legs and movement.. When you do this and other stuff it becomes a natural part of whatever you do.

If you want this stuff in Chi Sao done with the legs or hands to be useful in sparring then train it in Chi sao and then bring it into your sparring and sparring drills..

sihing

08-10-2006, 09:24 PM

James writes:

Why?

Andrew

Just to clarify, I'm talking about once the distance is obtained, the idea is to maintain that distance not let the person go from in close to longer range distance.

Now basically the reason why is because the concept is not as stressed in those systems (more so in judo since it is a grappling sport), as it is in some lineages of WC. The idea, as you already know, is to maintain the close in distance, eat the space and do what you will to the person, all in few seconds. The further the distance is btwn the two of you the more chance a low line kick will succeed. Also, is the basic idea of placing pressure (attacking pressure with strikes/pulls/push/locks/ etc..and body pressure, continually moving in on him, crowding and such) on someone during this close range situation. Just standing there twiddling your thumbs won't cut it. My limited experience tells me to damage him as much as possible then take him off his feet to the ground to further impede his mobility, and finish off there. Off course resistence has to be expected, so you just have to trust your abilities at this point (hopefully you put in enough practice/fight time).

To draw a picture persay, If my lead knee is on top of your lead knee, why would I want to raise up on one foot to lose balance/mobility in the process (two legs are much better for balance and movement than one in my book). Yeah, I know sh!t happens in a fight, but there are basic concepts of right and wrong things to do. e.g. Keeping my hands down by my side is the wrong thing to do when the guy is right in front of my face.
Having them somewhat near the area of engagement makes more sense in my book...Basic things that all fighting arts share. To me it is like telling a guy to try and kick the experienced wrestler once he has obtained his optimum range of engagement, it doesn't make sense to me. But whatta I know ah;)

J

YungChun

08-10-2006, 10:02 PM

The further the distance is btwn the two of you the more chance a low line kick will succeed.

This indicates we are working with two completely different mental paradigms..

How in the world can more space which by definition means more time to target mean that it is easier to kick or hit for that matter.. The closer you are to the target the less time there is to land and therefore that much harder for the opponent to evade, block, parry, jam, etc.. It's understood in the arts, and why folks are so careful once the range BEGINS to close, that once you get past a certain distance, depending on the size and speed of the fighters, that there is not enough time to react to an attack. Some folks call this "brim of fire" distance, others call this the "kill zone" . This refers to a distance at which the attack can get there too fast for the defender to respond to... If you let your opponent get this range, for him.. you WILL get hit..

The whole idea in both the inside use of kicking and striking is to operate inside this "kill zone" where the opponent cannot react fast enough to respond and defeat the attack.. This is the meaning of “invisible kicks..”

Further away IMO does not make it easier to land anything.. Unless you are talking about a spinning wheel kick or spinning back kick, maybe then you need a little more space to use those but we're talking WCK kicks.. Kicks designed mainly for use on the inside.

sihing

08-10-2006, 10:25 PM

This indicates we are working with two completely different mental paradigms..

How in the world can more space which by definition means more time to target mean that it is easier to kick or hit for that matter.. The closer you are to the target the less time there is to land and therefore that much harder for the opponent to evade, block, parry, jam, etc.. It's understood in the arts, and why folks are so careful once the range BEGINS to close, that once you get past a certain distance, depending on the size and speed of the fighters, that there is not enough time to react to an attack. Some folks call this "brim of fire" distance, others call this the "kill zone" . This refers to a distance at which the attack can get there too fast for the defender to respond to... If you let your opponent get this range, for him.. you WILL get hit..

The whole idea in both the inside use of kicking and striking is to operate inside this "kill zone" where the opponent cannot react fast enough to respond and defeat the attack.. This is the meaning of “invisible kicks..”

Further away IMO does not make it easier to land anything.. Unless you are talking about a spinning wheel kick or spinning back kick, maybe then you need a little more space to use those but we're talking WCK kicks.. Kicks designed mainly for use on the inside.

I understand the idea behind the closer you are the less time the other guy has to react, this a one of the main concepts behind WHY the WC system is more or less a closer range system.

The idea is that when you let the other guy have space you make it easier to perform the kick. When you eat the space you jam his ability to kick and therefore give him less weapons to use. Kicking is limited by range, this is a given. Even the worst fighters could get in clinch range with Ali and take away his weapons. Range in fighting is important as certain weapons are applicable at certain ranges. Vunak says that trapping range is the most lethal as all kinds of weapons (fists, elbows, forearms, headbutts, stomps, knees, finger jabs, inner arm attacks, etc..can be used). All the other ranges are more limited in there aresenal.

Regarding the invisible kicks, this to me is applied at wrist on wrist distance from outstretched arms, not quite the proper WC distance IMO, so in that context I agree that those types of kicks can be used effectively. To me elbow to elbow is proper distance for general WC application.

James

Buddha_Fist

08-10-2006, 10:50 PM

Well Chi Sao has arms sticking together yet clearly all training doesn't involve chasing hands... :?

Certainly it depends on what you do with the drill.. The idea as in Chi Sao is to develop positional awareness and learn how to place the legs in positions with respect to the opponent that help you and hurt him.. Once position is taken with the legs and arms of course the idea is to use that position to develop your attack which need not be restricted to the arms.. Some of the first finishing moves I was introduced to was the use of kwai sat, where the opponent takes position with the legs and knees and drops and presses in his leg and knee into your “stance” this kind of move is debilitating and creates complete upper and lower control when used by a good practitioner...

Again the drills help to develop sensitivity to contact and position.. How often do legs "clash" in TKD matches? How hard is it to get leg contact? How hard is it to issue force and get familiar with timing of leg contact and placement. A basic idea is to place the legs in positions where the opponent's kicking needs to replant his foot.. These can be very simple movements in sparring yet provide useful effects on entry as can stepping on the foot or placing the foot/leg in positions that make it harder for the opponent to move, these can set up other leg moves and of course hand moves as well, not to mention throws for those so inclined.

The question is if this is trained.. When some folks train their legs in this way they are always attempting to use their legs with their hands. Every time I step in in chi sao I will work to place my leg(s) in positions that interrupt--imbalance--or immobilize the opponent's legs and movement.. When you do this and other stuff it becomes a natural part of whatever you do.

If you want this stuff in Chi Sao done with the legs or hands to be useful in sparring then train it in Chi sao and then bring it into your sparring and sparring drills..

The question and the answer lie in how things are trained.